Vergara v Suelto Of course, the (plaintiff's) discussion seeks to convince the court
that there is no more need of a trial because conclusively it is
FACTS: Petitioner commenced an action for illegal detainer claimed that no genuine issue on a material fact was raised. But against the private respondents. His complaint alleged that: 1. it appears from the answer that the material allegations of facts he is the owner of a commercial building consisting of three (3) in the complaint constituting plaintiff's cause of action are sections, each of which is separately occupied by the defendants specifically denied and in addition thereto, defendants have put (private respondents herein) as lessees 2. the defendants all up affirmative defenses in avoidance of plaintiff's claims. defaulted in the payment of their rentals for many months, hence a demand letter for payment of unpaid rentals, The rule gives the court limited authority to enter summary termination of the lease and a demand to vacate the leased judgment. Upon a motion for summary judgment, the court's premises. 3. Defendants confirmed, through a joint letter, sole function is to determine whether there is an issue of fact to commitment to leave the premises but requested for an be tried. It does not vest the court with authority to try the extension of three months issues on depositions, pleadings, letters or affidavits. ... (I)f there is a controversy upon any question of fact, there should be a trial In their answer to the complaint, defendants 1) denied the of the case upon its merits. averments of the complaint relative to their and the plaintiff's personal circumstances; 2) denied Vergara's ownership of the ISSUE: W/N the court’s ruling that there can be no Summary building and the fact that it consisted of three sections Judgment is proper? separately leased by him: 3) claimed that their lease contract HELD: NO. The court has confused the summary judgment with with Vergara were null and void; 4) denied having initially paid judgment on the pleadings. The confusion is shared by the rentals but thereafter defaulting, claiming that they had been defendants (private respondents), this being revealed by their "occupying the premises in the concept of an owner;" 5) denied argument that in view of their denial of plaintiff's assertion of knowledge and hence professed inability to form a belief ownership over the premises in question, and their regarding either their joint letter to Vergara. Vergara filed a controversion of "the material facts of the adverse party," their Motion for Summary Judgment to which the defendants filed an answer did not only consist of a mere "general denial" but " Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to definitely tendered a genuine issue " "which cannot be resolved Dismiss. by resort to mere summary judgment." The court issued the following order: Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that where an answer "fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegation of the adverse party's pleading, the court In this case, the defendants' answer appears on its face to may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such tender issues. It purports to deal with each of the material pleading." The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if allegations of the complaint, and either specifically denies, or it does not comply with the requirements for a specific denial professes lack of knowledge or information to form a belief as set out in Section 10 (or Section 8) of Rule 8; and it would admit to them. It also sets up affirmative defenses. But the issues thus the material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings not only tendered are sham, not genuine, as illustrated below: where it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if 1. defendants' denial of their own personal circumstances is it omits to deal with them at all. obviously sham. They are all residents of Davao City, doing If an answer does in fact specifically deny the material business in which they have rented space and where they have averments of the complaint in the manner indicated by said been maintaining their commercial establishments. They have Section 10 of Rule 8, and/or asserts affirmative defenses been dealing with the plaintiff for years, and he being the owner (allegations of new matter which, while admitting the material of the building occupied by them. allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, would 2. Their disavowal of the plaintiff's ownership of the building nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff) in occupied by them, and also that the building is composed of accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 6, a judgment on the three (3) sections, also cannot be genuine. They had each been pleadings would naturally not be proper. occupying those three (3) sections for years and been paying But even if the answer does tender issues and therefore a rentals therefor to the plaintiff. judgment on the pleadings is not proper-a summary judgment 3. Also patently sham is their professed ignorance of the joint may still be rendered on the plaintiff's motion if he can show to letter sent by them to the plaintiff What they say is that "they the Court's satisfaction that "except as to the amount of have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief" as damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," 18 to it. This is ridiculous. Either they wrote the letter or they did that is to say, the issues thus tendered are not genuine, are in not. Either way, they cannot but have knowledge of it. To say other words sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith, that they are ignorant of it is palpable dishonesty. patently unsubstantial. 19 The determination may be made by the Court on the basis of the pleadings, and the depositions, 4. So, too, their denial of ever having paid rents to the plaintiff is admissions and affidavits that the movant may submit, as well fictitious. The facts on record, to which the plaintiff has drawn as those which the defendant may present in his turn. 20 attention, inclusive of the official receipt issued to defendant Montebon, prove they're beyond cavil. Under the circumstances herein set forth at some length, the Diman v Alumbres fitness and propriety of a summary judgment cannot be FACTS: The Heirs of Veronica Lacalle (represented by Jose disputed. The failure of the respondent Judge to render such a Lacalle) filed a complaint for "Quieting of Title and Damages" judgment was due solely to his unfortunate unfamiliarity with against the petitioners in the RTC of Las Piñas. They claimed that: the concept of a summary judgment. No genuine issue having a) their mother, the late Veronica Lacalle was the owner of a been tendered by the defendants, judgment should be directed land in Las Piñas covered by TCT No. 273301 of the ROD of the as a matter of right in the plaintiff's favor. To yet require a trial Province of Rizal; b) Veronica had acquired the land in 1959 by notwithstanding the pertinent allegations of the pleadings and virtue of a deed of absolute sale, and retained as caretakers the the other facts indubitably appearing on record would be a persons she found in occupancy of the lot at the time of the sale waste of time, and an injustice to the plaintiff whose obtention the sps. Nario with arrangement to share the agricultural fruits" of the relief to which he is plainly and patently entitled would be until the former would have need of the property; c) the further delayed. The remedy properly available to the petitioner caretakers of the lot were served with a notice for them to in the premises, however, is not the writ of mandamus. Well vacate the land (dated November 22, 1994) and an alias writ of known is the rule that mandamus issues only to compel demolition (dated June 7, 1994) issued by the MTC in the case performance of a mandatory, ministerial duty. The for "ejectment with damages" filed by the Dimans against the determination that under the facts and circumstances obtaining Narios, judgment in which, commanding the Narios' ouster, had in a case a summary judgment is proper, and the motion supposedly been affirmed by the Makati RTC; d) neither the therefor should be granted and summary judgment deceased Veronica nor any of her heirs had been made parties consequently rendered, rests in the sound discretion of a trial to said ejectment action; e) the complaint for ejectment court and cannot be regarded as a duty of ministerial function contains false assertions, and had caused them injury for which compellable by the extraordinary writ of mandamus. In this the Dimans should be made to pay damages. case, the respondent Judge had discretion to make that determination. What happened was that His Honor made that In their answer with counterclaim, the Dimans alleged that: a) determination with grave abuse of discretion. Despite the plain they are the registered and absolute owners of the land in Pasay and patent propriety of a summary judgment, he declined to registered in their names, and have no knowledge of the land render such a verdict. The writ of certiorari will lie to correct that claimed by the Lacalle Heirs; b) they are entitled to eject from grave abuse of discretion. their land the Nario Spouses, who were falsely claiming to be their lessees; c) if the Heirs' theory is that the land in their title, No 273301, is the same as that covered by the Dimans' titles, then said title No. 2733101 is spurious; d) they are entitled to for admission, a copy of which was personally delivered to the damages on their counterclaim. latter's lawyer; but again, no response whatever was made. After joinder of the issues, the Dimans served on the heirs a The Dimans then submitted a "MOTION FOR SUMMARY REQUEST FOR ADMISSION of the truth of the following specified JUDGMENT" dated April 17, 1995. In that motion they drew matters of fact: a) the Heirs' TCT 273301 (Rizal) is not recorded attention to the Heirs' failure to file any Pre-Trial Brief, and the in the Registry of Rizal, or of Pasay City, or of Parañaque, or of several instances when the Heirs failed to appear at scheduled Las Pinas; b) the Dimans' transfer certificates of title are all duly hearings resulting in the dismissal of their complaint, which was registered in their names in Pasay City, as alleged in their however later reinstated. They argued that because the Heirs answer; c) in the Index Records of Registered Property Owners had failed to respond to their REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, each under Act No. 496 in the Office of the Land Registration of the matters of which an admission was requested, was Authority, there is no record of any property situated in Las deemed admitted pursuant to Section 2, Rule 26. On this basis, Piñas in the name of Veronica Lacalle, more particularly and on the basis of the joint affidavit of Clarissa Diman de los described in TCT 273301; 4) the Heirs cannot produce a certified Reyes and Florina Diman Tan — attached to the motion and true copy of TCT 273301: 5) neither Veronica nor any of her heirs substantiating the facts recited in the request for admission — ever declared the property under TCT 273301 for taxation the Dimans asserted that no genuine issue existed and prayed purposes since its alleged acquisition on February 24, 1959 or that "a summary judgment be entered dismissing the case for since the issuance of said title on August 7, 1959; 6) not a single lack of merit." centavo has been paid by the Heirs as real estate taxes; and 7) The Trial Court denied the Dimans' motion for summary no steps have been taken by the Heirs to ascertain the judgment. In its Order of June 14, 1995, the Court declared that genuineness and authenticity of the conflicting titles. a "perusal of the Complaint and the Answer will clearly show The REQUEST FOR ADMISSION was received by Jose Lacalle. that material issue is raised in that both plaintiffs and However, no response was made to the request by Lacalle, his defendants claimed ownership over the land in dispute, lawyer, or anyone else, despite the lapse of the period therefor presenting their respective titles thereto and accused each fixed by Section 2 of Rule 26 (not less than ten days after other of possessing false title to the land." It stressed that a service). The Dimans thereupon filed with the Court a summary judgment "is not proper where the defendant "MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION TO REOUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO presented defenses tendering factual issues which call for the ANSWER REQUEST FOR ADMISSION," dated March 28, 1995, presentation of evidence." giving the Heirs 10 more days to file their answer to the request Shortly after the Heirs rested their case, the Dimans filed a is requested or (2) setting forth in detail the reason why cannot Motion for Judgment on Demurrer to Evidence dated June 25, truthfully either admit or deny those matters. If the party served 1996. does not respond with such a sworn statement, each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed The Trial Court denied their motion to dismiss. What Dimans did admitted. was to commence a special civil action of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition in the Court of Appeals praying (a) that it set It is the law which determines when a summary judgment is aside the Orders of June 14, 1995 (denying summary judgment), proper. It declares that although the pleadings on their face of December 2, 1996 (denying demurrer to evidence), and appear to raise issues of fact — e. g., there are denials of, or a February 28, 1997 (denying reconsideration); (b) that the Trial conflict in, factual allegations — if it is shown by admissions, Judge be commanded to dismiss the case before it; and (c) that depositions or affidavits, that those issues are sham, fictitious, said judge be prohibited from conducting further proceedings in or not genuine, or, in the language of the Rules, that "except as the case, which the CA denied. to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment ISSUE: WON the denial of the Demurrer to evidence and as a matter of law." The Court shall render a summary judgment Summary Judgment was valid. for the plaintiff or the defendant as the case may be. HELD: No. Not a valid denial. A Trial Court has no discretion to determine what the consequences of a party's refusal to allow or make discovery should be; it is the law which makes that Distinction Summary Judgment & Judgment of the Pleadings determination; and it is grave abuse of discretion for the Court • a judgment on the facts as summarily proven by affidavits, to refuse to recognize and observe the effects of that refusal as depositions or admissions. mandated by law. Particularly as regards requests for admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, the law ordains that when • Existence of judgment issues but such are sham, fictitious, and a party is served with a written request that he admit: (1) the not genuine. genuineness of any material and relevant document described • REMEDY: may be applied for by either a claimant or a in and exhibited with the request, or (2) the truth of any material defending party. and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request, said party is bound within the period designated in the request, to file and • judgment on the facts as pleaded serve on the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either (1) denying specifically the matters of which an admission • No ostensible issues in the pleadings because of the In fine, the Heirs had proven nothing whatever to justify a defendant’s failure to raise such in the answer. judgment in their favor. They had not presented any copy whatever of the title they wished to be quieted. They had not • REMEDY: may be sought only by a claimant (one seeking to adduced any proof worthy of the name to establish their recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain precedessors' ownership of the land. On the contrary, their own a declaratory relief, supra) evidence, from whatever aspect viewed, more than persuasively These basic distinctions escaped the lower court judge. • He indicated their lack of title over the land, or the spuriousness of denied the Dimans' motion for summary judgment in his Order their claim of ownership thereof. The evidence on record could of June 14, 1995, opining that a "perusal of the Complaint and not be interpreted in any other way, and no other conclusion the Answer will clearly show that material issue is raised in that could be drawn therefrom except the unmeritoriousness of the both plaintiffs and defendants claimed ownership over the land complaint. The case at bar is a classic example of the eminent in dispute, presenting their respective titles thereto and accused propriety of a summary judgment, or a judgment on demurrer each other of possessing false title to the land." • He added that to evidence. a summary judgment "is not proper where the defendant It was indeed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Trial presented defenses tendering factual issues which call for the Court to have refused to render a summary judgment or one on presentation of evidence." Such a ratiocination is grossly demurrer to evidence. erroneous. The grounds relied on by the Judge are proper for the denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings — as to which the Nocom v Camerino essential question, as already remarked, is: are there issues FACTS: arising from or generated by the pleadings? — but not as regards a motion for summary judgment — as to which the Respondents are tenants of the lots which they were seeking to crucial question is: issues having been raised by the pleadings, redeem from SMSC. They won but the case has not yet been are those issues genuine, or sham or fictitious, as shown by fully executed since TCT's were not yet transferred to them. affidavits, depositions or admissions accompanying the While all of these are pending, Atty. Santos, the counsel for application therefor? Respondents in their case against SMSC, facilitated a deal between Respondents and Nocom. The deal would transfer all their inchoate rights to Nocom. The deal went through and Respondents’ were paid after they executed and “Irrevocable Power of Atty” in the name of Nocom. Respondents won their policy on the qualification of the beneficiaries of the agrarian case and the court ordered the transfer of titles and the reform program. CA affirmed the Summary Judgment and annotation of the Irrevocable Power of Atty to the titles. dismissed Nocom’s appeal. It found that the issues raised by the petitioner is his appeal are questions of law. However, Camerino filed a complaint against Nocom, camptioned as “Petition to Revoke Power of Atty”, alleging that ISSUSE: WON the CA is correct in not voiding the assailed the document was not explained to them and they were misled summary judgment. by their counsel. HELD: No. The present case involves certain factual issues which On Jan. 30, 2006, respondent Camerino filed a Motion for remove it from the coverage of a summary judgment. Summary Summary Judgment alleging that since the existence of the judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid Irrevocable Power of Atty was admitted by petitioner, the only long drawn out litigations and useless delays. When the issue to be resolved was whether the said document was pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact coupled with interest and whether it was revocable in to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by contemplation of law and jurisprudence; that Summary way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in Judgment was proper because petitioner did not raise any issue dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by relevant to the contents of the Irrevocable Power of Atty; and applying the law to the material facts. Conversely, where the that in an Affidavit dated Jan 23, 2005, he admitted receipt of a pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is not check amounting to P500K which was given to him by petitioner proper. as financial assistance. Requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must Nocom opposed Camerino’s motion on the ground that there be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the were factual issues. Then, Nocom filed a MTD on the ground that amount of damages; (2) the party presenting the motion for there’s NO Jurisdiction since it is a Real Action and that docket summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter fees paid was insufficient. Camerino insisted that it was a of law. A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no personal action because it’s a revocation of an Irrevocable genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party is Power of Atty. The RTC granted Motion for Summary Judgment entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment since there’s no genuine issue of fact that needs to be tried in is proper if, while the pleadings on their face appear to raise court. Camerino was also ordered to pay the balance of the issues, the affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by docket fees. It rendered a SUMMARY JUDGMENT annulling the the moving party show that such issues are not genuine. Irrevocable Power of Atty for being contrary to law and public The present case should not be decided via a summary necessary to determine the validity and legality of the judgment. Summary judgment is not warranted when there are "Irrevocable Power of Attorney," dated December 18, 2003, genuine issues which call for a full blown trial. The party who executed by the respondents in favor of the petitioner. From moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating said main factual issue, other relevant issues spring therefrom, clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue to wit: whether the said "Irrevocable Power of Attorney" was posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to coupled with interest; whether it had been obtained through constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts have limited fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation or other vices of consent; authority to render summary judgments and may do so only whether the five (5) Philtrust Bank Manager’s checks given by when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. petitioner to the respondents amounting to P500,000 each were When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or in consideration of the "inchoate and contingent rights" of the contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the respondents in favor of the petitioner; whether Atty. Santos place of trial. connived with petitioner in causing the preparation of the said document and, therefore, should be impleaded as party- Summary judgment is generally based on the facts proven defendant together with the petitioner; whether respondents summarily by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of deposited the amount of P9,790,612.00 plus P147,059.18 with the parties. In this present case, while both parties acknowledge the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256; and whether the sale of or admit the existence of the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney," respondents’ inchoate and contingent rights amounted to a the variance in the allegations in the pleadings of the petitioner champertous contract. vis-à-vis that of the respondents require the presentation of evidence on the issue of the validity of the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney" to determine whether its execution was attended Evangelista v Mercator by the vices of consent and whether the respondents and their spouses did not freely and voluntarily execute the same. In his FACTS: Petitioners Sps Evangelist filed a complaint for Answer with Counterclaim, petitioner denied the material annulment of titles against respondents. Petitioners claimed allegations of respondent Oscar Camerino’s complaint for being being the registered owners of 5 parcels of land contained in the false and baseless as respondents were informed that the REM executed by them and Embassy Farms. They alleged that document they signed was the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney" they executed the REM in favor of Respondent Mercator only as in his favor and that they had received the full consideration of officers of Embassy Farms. They did not receive the proceeds of the transaction and, thus, had no legal right over the three the loan evidenced by a PN, as all of it went to Embassy Farms. parcels of land. Indeed, the presentation of evidence is Thus, they contended that the mortgage was without any consideration as to them since they did not personally obtain ownership of petitioners of the subject parcels of land, but any loan or credit accommodations. There being no principal alleged that they are the present registered owner. Both obligation on which the mortgage rests, the real estate respondents likewise assailed the long silence and inaction by mortgage is void. With the void mortgage, they assailed the petitioners as it was only after a lapse of almost 10 years from validity of the foreclosure proceedings conducted by Mercator, the foreclosure of the property and the subsequent sales that the sale to it as the highest bidder in the public auction, the they made their claim. Thus, Salazar and Lamecs averred that issuance of the transfer certificates of title to it, the subsequent petitioners are in estoppel and guilty of laches. sale of the same parcels of land to respondent Salazar and the After pre-trial, Mercator moved for summary judgment on the transfer of the titles to her name, and lastly, the sale and ground that except as to the amount of damages, there is no transfer of the properties to respondent Lamecs. factual issue to be litigated. Morever, the petitioners had Mercator admitted that petitioners were the owners of the admitted in their pre-trial brief the existence of the promissory subject parcels of land. It, however, contended that on February note, the continuing suretyship agreement and the subsequent 16, 1982, the spouses executed a Mortgage in favor of Mercator promissory notes restructuring the loan, hence, there is no for and in consideration of certain loans, and/or other forms of genuine issue regarding their liability. The mortgage, foreclosure credit accommodations obtained from the Mortgagee proceedings and the subsequent sales are valid and the (Mercator) amounting to P844,625.78 and to secure the complaint must be dismissed. However, the motion was payment of the same and those others that the MORTGAGEE opposed by the Petitioners claiming that because their personal may extend to the Spouses. It contended that since the spouses liability to Mercator is at issue, there is a need for a full-blown and Embassy Farms signed the promissory note as co-makers, trial. The trial court granted MOTION FOR SUMMARY aside from the Continuing Suretyship Agreement subsequently JUDGMENT and DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. It held that a executed to guarantee the indebtedness of Embassy Farms, and reading of the PNs shows that the liability of the signatories is the succeeding PNs restructuring the loan, then petitioners are solidary (“jointly and severally”). It is crystal clear then that the jointly and severally liable with Embassy Farms. Due to their spouses signed the promissory note not only as officers of failure to pay the obligation, the foreclosure and subsequent Embassy Farms but in their personal capacity as well. MR- sale of the mortgaged properties are valid. DENIED. CA affirmed, it Held that the fact that they signed the subject promissory notes in their personal capacities and as Respondents Salazar and Lamecs asserted that they are officers of the said debtor corporation is manifest on the very innocent purchasers for value and in good faith, relying on the face of the said documents of indebtedness. Even assuming validity of the title of Mercator. Lamecs admitted the prior arguendo that they did not, the appellants lose sight of the fact that third persons who are not parties to a loan may secure the forestall summary judgment, it is essential for the non-moving latter by pledging or mortgaging their own. In constituting a party to confirm the existence of genuine issues where he has mortgage over their own property in order to secure the substantial, plausible and fairly arguable defense, i.e., issues of purported corporate debt of Embassy Farms, the appellants fact calling for the presentation of evidence upon which a undeniably assumed the personality of persons interested in the reasonable finding of fact could return a verdict for the non- fulfillment of the principal obligation who, to save the subject moving party. The proper inquiry would therefore be whether realities from foreclosure and with a view towards being the affirmative defenses offered by petitioners constitute subrogated to the rights of the creditor, were free to discharge genuine issue of fact requiring a full-blown trial. the same by payment. The agreement was signed by petitioners on February 16, 1982. ISSUE: WON the granting of the motion for summary judgment The promissory notes subsequently executed by petitioners and was proper despite the existence of genuine issues as to Embassy Farms, restructuring their loan, likewise prove that material facts. petitioners are solidarily liable with Embassy Farms. HELD: Affirmed. No genuine issues raised by petitioners. Petitioners further allege that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the promissory note and claim that since it was Petitioners do not deny that they obtained a loan from Mercator who provided the form, then the ambiguity should be Mercator. They merely claim that they got the loan as officers of resolved against it. Embassy Farms without intending to personally bind themselves or their property. However, a simple perusal of the promissory Courts can interpret a contract only if there is doubt in its letter. note and the continuing suretyship agreement shows otherwise. But, an examination of the promissory note shows no such These documentary evidence prove that petitioners are solidary ambiguity. obligors with Embassy Farms. Summary judgment "is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation." The crucial question Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose in a motion for summary judgment is whether the issues raised FACTS: It is alleged in the petition that for 12 years, respondent in the pleadings are genuine or fictitious, as shown by affidavits, bought from petitioner live cattle and hogs which he in turn sold depositions or admissions accompanying the motion. A genuine and distributed to his customers. The transactions were covered issue means "an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of by invoices and delivery receipts and were payable within 10 evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or days from invoice date. Due to respondent’s inability to pay for contrived so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial."20 To his purchases, his overdue account amounted to Petitioners opposed the manifestation and motion, stating that P87,434,689.37, and as a consequence, petitioner ceased its the reverse trial order has no basis since the amount allegedly transactions with respondent. admitted was dramatically less than the total of P1,280,000.00 claimed by respondent. Sometime in 1998, during the existence of the contractual relations between the parties, they entered into a contract At the initial hearing of the case, petitioners confirmed in open growing agreement whereby petitioner supplied livestock for court that they indeed entered into a contract growing respondent to grow, care for and nurture in his farm located in agreement with respondent and that the latter was entitled to a Batangas. After 5 months of operation, petitioner withdrew net compensation of P482,766.88 under the said contract. The from the contract without paying respondent for his services, trial court rendered partial summary judgment, acting of alleging that respondent failed to post the requisite bond under petitioner’s judicial admission, concerning the amount of the contract and poorly performed his farm management P482,766.88. The case was set for trial for the presentation of functions to the detriment of the animals. evidence on petitioners’ claim for damages. Respondent repeatedly demanded that petitioner corporation Respondent moved for the execution of the partial summary pay him for his services under the contract, amounting to judgment which was granted. On Dec 15, 1999 the court issued P1,280,000.00. His demands went unheeded; thus, he filed with a Writ of Execution directing the sheriff to cause the execution the RTC an action for sum of money and damages against of the partial summary decision. Petitioners filed a petition for petitioner corporation and its President, petitioner Ramon F. certiorari before the CA –which was Dismissed Llanes. During the pre-trial conference, petitioners failed to ISSUE: WON summary judgment is proper in the case at bar. appear, and an order declaring them in default was issued. RTC: Ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioners then filed a Motion for HELD: Yes. A summary judgment or accelerated judgment is a new trial which was granted. Case set for a pre-trial again. procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, After the pre-trial, respondent submitted a manifestation and depositions, admissions and affidavits on record, or for weeding motion alleging that petitioners have admitted their liability out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation to under the contract growing agreement at least to the extent of avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. P482,766.88 when they alleged in their Joint Answer: In accordance with the standard contract growing fee provision respondent was entitled to a compensation of net P482,766.88. Respondent thus prayed that reverse trial be conducted. OBJECT/PURPOSE: To separate what is formal or pretended in to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material denial or averment from what is genuine and substantial so that facts. only the latter may subject a party in interest to the burden of Clearly, the judgment finally disposed of all the reliefs sought in trial. It must be premised on the absence of any other triable the complaint. The order granting summary judgment was akin genuine issues of fact. Otherwise, the movant cannot be allowed to a judgment on the merits made after a full-blown trial. Its to obtain immediate relief. A genuine issue is such issue of fact consequent execution, therefore, may issue as a matter of right which requires presentation of evidence as distinguished from a in favor of respondent unless appeal was seasonably made sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. therein, which petitioners failed to do. Instead of filing a notice (Rule 35, Sec 3 ROC) 2 requisites for summary judgment to be of appeal with the trial court, petitioners elevated the matter to proper: (1) there must be no genuine issue as to any material the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of fact, except for the amount of damages; and (2) the party the Rules of Court, which is not a substitute for the lost remedy presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled of appeal. to a judgment as a matter of law. The record shows that at the Petitioners maintain that the order granting partial summary hearing on November 25, 1999, petitioners admitted liability judgment was merely interlocutory in nature and did not under the contract growing agreement in the amount of dispose of the action in its entirety. - Petitioners position is P482,766.88. As a result, respondent agreed to waive all his untenable. In the case at bar, other than the admitted liability of other claims in the complaint, including his claim for petitioners to respondents under the contract growing consequential damages. Correspondingly, insofar as the agreement, all other reliefs sought under the complaint had complaint was concerned, there was no other genuine issue left already been expressly waived by respondent before the trial for which the complaint for sum of money and damages may be court. Accordingly, the assailed Order of the trial court which prosecuted. Also by reason of such admission, petitioners, in granted partial summary judgment in favor of respondent was effect, likewise waived whatever defenses they may have to in the nature of a final order which leaves nothing more for the deter recovery by respondent under the said contract. Thus, court to adjudicate in respect to the complaint. respondent became entitled, as a matter of law, to the execution of the partial summary judgment. When there are no A party cannot successfully invoke deprivation of due process if genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules of Court allows a he was accorded the opportunity of a hearing, through either party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment. oral arguments or pleadings. Contrary to petitioners’ claims, the In short, since the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed record shows that petitioners were duly represented by counsel when the motion for summary judgment as well as the execution of the same were heard by the trial court. Petitioners Grand Farms v CA counsel did not register any opposition to respondents’ oral FACTS: Sometime on April 15, 1988, petitioners filed a case in motion for summary judgment, saying that under the the RTC for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of the Rules of Court it should be furnished a written motion for extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings over their mortgaged summary judgment at least 10 days before it is heard. We find, properties, with damages, against respondent clerk of court, however, that the absence of the written notice did not divest deputy sheriff and PR Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank. the trial court of authority to pass on the merits of the motion Soon after the PR bank had filed its answer to the complaint, made in open court. The order of the court granting the motion petitioners filed a request for admission by PR bank of the for summary judgment and its execution thereof despite allegation, inter alia , that no formal notice of intention to absence of a notice of hearing, or proof of service thereof, is foreclose the real estate mortgage was sent by private merely an irregularity in the proceedings. It cannot deprive the respondent to petitioners. court of its authority to pass on the merits of the motion. The PR bank, through its deputy liquidator, responded under oath to remedy of the aggrieved party in such cases is either to have the the request and countered that petitioners were notified of the order set aside or the irregularity otherwise cured by the court, auction sale by the posting of notices and the publication of or to appeal from the final judgment, and not thru certiorari. notice in the Metropolitan Newsweek, a newspaper of general In fact, the counsel for petitioners actively participated in circulation in the province where the subject properties are disposing of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint when he located and in the Philippines on February 13, 20 and 28, 1988. sought the reduction in respondents claim to P482,766.88. On the basis of the alleged implied admission by PR bank that no Besides, we find from the records that petitioners expressly formal notice of foreclosure was sent to petitioners, the latter agreed to the summary judgment and to the execution of the filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the same after respondent posts a bond in an amount fixed by the foreclosure was violative of the provisions of the mortgage court. In short, petitioners were never deprived of their day in contract, specifically paragraph (k) thereof which provides: k) All court. Thus, they cannot now be allowed to claim that they were correspondence relative to this Mortgage, including demand denied due process. The Rules of Court should be liberally letters, summons, subpoena or notifications of any judicial or construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, extrajudical actions shall be sent to the Mortgagor at the speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and address given above or at the address that may hereafter be proceeding. given in writing by the Mortgagor to the Mortgagee, and the mere act of sending any correspondence by mail or by personal delivery to the said address shall be valid and effective notice to permission of power to collect rents, to eject tenants, to lease the Mortgagor for all legal purposes, and the fact that any or sell the mortgaged property, or any part thereof, at public or communication is not actually received by the Mortgagor, or private sale without previous notice or advertisement of any that it has been returned unclaimed to the Mortgagee, or that kind and execute the corresponding bills of sale, lease or other no person was found at the address given, or that the address is agreement that may be deemed convenient, to make repairs or fictitious, or cannot be located, shall not excuse or relieve the improvement to the mortgaged property and pay for the same Mortgagor from the effects of such notice; The motion was and perform any other act which the Mortgagor may deem opposed by PR bank which argued that petitioners' reliance on convenient . . . the trial court denied Motion for summary said paragraph (k) of the mortgage contract fails to consider judgment, while the CA dismissed the petition, holding that no paragraphs (b) and (d) of the same contract, which respectively personal notice was required to foreclose since private provide as follows: b) . . . For the purpose of extra-judicial respondent was constituted by petitioners as their attorney-in- foreclosure, the Mortgagor (plaintiff) hereby appoints the fact to sell the mortgaged property. Mortgagee (BF) his attorney-in-fact to sell the property ISSUE: WON denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment is mortgaged, to sign all documents and perform any act requisite proper. and necessary to accomplish said purpose and to appoint its substitutes as such attorney-in-fact, with the same powers as HELD: Yes. The Rules of Court authorize the rendition of a above-specified. The Mortgagor hereby expressly waives the summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions and admissions term of thirty (30) days or any other term granted or which may on file, together with the affidavits, show that, except as to the hereafter be granted him by law as the period which must elapse amount of damages, there is no issue as to any material fact and before the Mortgagee shall be entitled to foreclose this that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of mortgage, it being specifically understood and agreed that the law. Although an issue may be raised formally by the pleadings said Mortgagee may foreclose this mortgage at any time after but there is no genuine issue of fact, and all the facts are within the breach of any conditions hereof. . . . x x x xxx xx the judicial knowledge of the court, summary judgment may be x d) Effective upon the breach of any conditions of the mortgage granted. and in addition to the remedies herein stipulated, the The real test of a motion for summary judgment is whether the Mortgagee is hereby likewise appointed attorney-in-fact of the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of the motion are Mortgagor with full powers and authority, with the use of force, sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and to justify a if necessary, to take actual possession of the mortgaged finding as a matter of law that there is no defense to the action property, without the necessity for any judicial order or any or that the claim is clearly meritorious. Applying said criteria to the case at bar, we find petitioners' action in the court below for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of the foreclosure proceedings and damages ripe for summary judgment. Private respondent tacitly admitted in its answer to petitioners' request for admission that it did not send any formal notice of foreclosure to petitioners. There has been no denial by private respondent that no personal notice of the extrajudicial foreclosure was ever sent to petitioners prior thereto. This omission, by itself, rendered the foreclosure defective and irregular for being contrary to the express provisions of the mortgage contract. There is thus no further necessity to inquire into the other issues cited by the trial court, for the foreclosure may be annulled solely on the basis of such defect. While private respondent was constituted as their attorney-in- fact by petitioners, the inclusion of the aforequoted paragraph (k) in the mortgage contract nonetheless rendered personal notice to the latter indispensable. While publication of the foreclosure proceedings in the newspaper of general circulation was complied with, personal notice is still required, as in the case at bar, when the same was mutually agreed upon by the parties as additional condition of the mortgage contract. Failure to comply with this additional stipulation would render illusory Article 1306 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver for Southwest Savings Association v. Heritage Financial Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Richard H. Rossmiller, Lower Downtown Associates, a Colorado Partnership, Household Bank Fsb, Formerly Brighton Federal Savings and Loan Association, Post-Judgment-Claimant-Appellant, 940 F.2d 671, 10th Cir. (1991)